Main Navigation

Main Content

A non-profit publication of the Office of the University Relations of Virginia Tech,
including The Conductor, a special section of the Spectrum printed 4 times a year

Indirect cost recoveries drop

By Susan Trulove

Spectrum Volume 17 Issue 10 - October 27, 1994

Because of a reduction in the indirect cost-recovery rate from 53.5 percent
last year to 46 percent in the year which began July 1, the research and
sponsored programs operations' budget will be $2 million less this year, Ernie
Stout told the Commission on Research Wednesday. Next year's indirect
cost-recovery rate is 45 percent.

The indirect cost rate is the percentage the federal government allows
institutions to charge on contracts and grants to cover overhead expenses such
as utilities and facilities use.

At Virginia Tech, indirect cost recoveries are used to support and enhance the
research mission of the university. This includes facilities renovations,
equipment purchases, administration, graduate-student support, new construction
through the Central Capital Account, and leased space.

Some of the funds are returned to colleges and departments to meet these
expenses, and some are administered by research and sponsored programs. In
response to a question regarding what strategies are being used to deal with
the fall in revenue, Stout said 30 percent goes to the non-general fund portion
of the Research Division budget, which will now have $600,000 less. "That
impacts all nine colleges."

Of the remaining 70 percent, used as described above, the colleges and
departments will see $1 million cut and the Research Division will see a
$300,000 cut. "Our building loans will be paid off relatively soon. We are
trying to get out of building leases. The university has never provided
maintenance at the Prices Fork research center or new facilities on Plantation
Road, so the Research Division has employed people to care for the grounds and
buildings. As of October 15, we are out of that business. What will happen, I
don't know. We are attempting to cut back to our core responsibilities."

"What doesn't get done gets handed down to the departments," Peter Eyre said.
"The money is not gone. It's in the hands of the principal investigators, some
of whom will say, `Hooray,'" Joe Schetz said.

Len Peters said, "When you look at public, land-grant universities, 46 percent
is around the median and where we should probably be. The 53.5-percent rate
reflected under-recovery in prior years. But if you take a long-term
perspective on dollars per award, that number is down. It appears to have crept
up, but it has not risen as much as the consumer price index."

The commission approved the recommendations of the review committee of the
Institute of High Energy Physics. The committee recommended the institute be
re-authorized as a university center for another three years subject to
recommendations that include submission of annual reports to the associate
provost for research, development of a budget of yearly expenditures,
allocation of overhead funds to operations, and establishment of an advisory
board.

Jim Wightman, who chaired the review, commended the institute's national and
international activity, near self-sufficiency, and director Lay Nam Chang's
good record of communication with the physics department head. Input was
invited from the physics faculty members. The two who responded to the
invitation were interviewed by the review committee.

Discussion of a research title series continued. Little feedback had been
received by commission members from their constituents. The proposal is that
there be titles for research faculty members that mirror the titles for
tenure-track faculty: assistant research professor, associate research
professor, and research professor. Appointments are for three to five years,
and the faculty members are eligible for promotions. The research faculty can
direct graduate students.

Janet Johnson said she e-mailed 85 faculty members and got one response. The
respondentfavored the change, but believed that a research
professor should not be seen as a full professor. Eyre agreed, and also
expressed concern with a sentence in the proposal which says if a faculty
member transfers from research to tenure-track status, years of service don't
count. Peters said that in the case of a young person with three years as an
assistant research professor before becoming a tenure-track faculty member, if
the three years counted they would give him or her less time to prepare for
tenure evaluation.

Eyre suggested softening the language from "shall be" to "may be." Stout
endorsed the proposal because, "There are not going to be very many
tenure-track positions for a very long time. This may be the only way we grow
and renew the intellectual capital of the university." Peters suggested that
Pat Hyer be asked to look at the wording of the proposal. Johnson asked
commission members to gather more feedback.

On the continuing issue of enhancing undergraduates' perceptions of the role
of a research university, Johnson presented a list of possible activities based
on past discussion. They include: determining strategies for encouraging the
faculty to present its research and scholarly activity in undergraduate
courses; articles focusing on undergraduate research in university and college
publications; campus-wide symposium or poster session on undergraduate
research; a competitive grant program to fund undergraduate research; a
bibliography of materials developed by faculty members that can be used in the
classroom; encouragement of undergraduate research in the curriculum; and
undergraduate mailboxes.